The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of Oncology Associates Limited, which had still been fighting a decision made by the Minister of Health to shut down the cancer treatment facility several years ago.
Attorney for Oncology Associations, Philip “Brave” Davis, had argued that the standard of care provided by the cancer centre did not fall below the requirements as defined in the agreement between the government and OAL.
Mr. Davis contended that the complaints received regarding the care being provided at the centre were not sufficient to terminate the contract.
But the court said that in taking the deliberate decision to give to OAL a contract to provide the care that had previously been provided by Mt. Sinai Hospital in Florida for the same price, the minister, in fact, was expecting the same quality of care for patients referred by him to that institution.
“Otherwise, it would make no sense to pay the same money for lesser quality of service, unless we are to assume that the minister was not acting responsibly,” the judgment said. “That is the only inference we could reasonably draw.”
The Ministry of Health entered into a contract with OAL in June 1996 to provide radiotherapy services to public patients with cancer at a cost of $450,000 annually, but the health minister later shut down the facility after a report from the American College of Radiology (ACR) found that the oncology care provided by OAL at its facility in New Providence was an “imminent threat to the safety of patients, staff and the public.”
Mr. Davis had argued that Justice Hartman Longley “erred and misdirected himself in law and in fact by relying upon the report and findings of the American College of Radiology.”
But the Court of Appeal said that this does not seem to be a well thought out point because the ACR report was given to both sides and OAL, by its conduct, acted upon that report and it is not clear that any strenuous objection was raised to that report being tendered before the judge.
The appeal had also been filed on the ground that the judge erred when he determined that findings of the report amounted to a breach of OAL’s contract with the minister of health, who at the time was Minister of Health Dr. Ronald Knowles.
“In effect, as we understand it, not only were ACR allowed to inspect the premises of OAL, but they were also at liberty to interview the employees of OAL and they, in fact, did that,” the ruling said.
The ruling also pointed out that the relationship between the Ministry and OAL deteriorated and eventually ACR did an assessment because of complaints reaching the minister.
An inspection of the premises was carried out and ACR found the situation to be such that it gave an interim report because the investigators were so concerned about the state of the facility at which persons were being treated, the ruling notes.
The result of it all was that the facility was closed and the Court of Appeal noted that most if not all of the preliminary report was confirmed in the final report, which was an indictment of OAL.
“It appears to us from the record and the judgment that OAL accepted the findings of ACR as being accurate with regard both the state of the facility and the treatment of the patients and the inadequacy of that treatment and they implemented the recommendations of ACR,” the ruling says.
The justices also said that, “it was strange, to say the least, that OAL should then think that the minister was wrong to terminate [the] contract with OAL once that report was accepted by them.”
The Supreme Court ruling last year had noted that the complaints as they relate to OAL ranged from bedside manners of OAL’s chief of radiology, one Dr. Mark Harrison, to his treatment of some the patients.
“It was alleged, for instance, that there was excessive burning when compared with the treatment previously administered by Mt. Sinai,” the earlier ruling said.
“Other complaints were made by medical doctors, particularly those concerned with gynecological patients who had to be treated for cervical cancer. The complaint in that instance was that they were not being treated properly or completed.”
Justice Longley also said in his ruling that, “To my mind, treatment that is found to demonstrate a reckless disregard for the welfare of patients and which was pervasive as that of Dr. Harrison’s and which produced documented excessive and unnecessary morbidity strikes at the very heart and substance of the contract which was concerned with the public health and strips the minister of the very thing that he contracted for.”
Mr. Davis said on Monday evening that OAL plans to appeal to the Privy Council.
By: Candia Dames, The Bahama Journal
